Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife launches Tea Party group

And this is a shock to whom? Sitting in there with that big old grin as if that chick is something to proud of, this man's self hate is way old news. If, its an anti-black group like the tea party folks, rest assured, Thomas will be front and center, and, this "man" claims to be impartial on the court, yeah right.

Is this man really the "Boogie Man"? Are we giving him more power then he deserves??

As long as he is part of the GOP right wing majority on the Court and a reliable anti-black vote, he has a whole lot of power.

You're right. It should be scrutinized. But shouldn't the president's campaign promises and lack of promised transparency be scrutinized as well?

I think President Obama was right to criticize the Supreme Court in that particular situation. I agree with everything he had to say. It is sad when the rich have a strangle hold on our politics. We should leave it up to the american people to decide the direction of our country in elections and not big corporations. Also, I think Virginia Thomas needs to stay out limelight of politics, because she is not doing her husband any favors.

If Obama would stop his lying or maybe I should say not telling the whole truth this would never have happened. Obama made it sound like any company could donate. Like the Justice said...it's not true. Foreign companies are NOT allowed to donate. Before all you liberals spew garbage, how about doing us all a favor...READ AND LEARN what you're talking about before opening your mouths.

you go girl. All candidates need a report card instead of yard signs.

Taylor, that's the problem with D.C. these day's; there's no scrutiny, no morals, no ethics and above all no honesty. It's not wwhat you know it's who you blow.

Hey Tim, Why don't you stop your lying! Oh, and please why don't you get a real education.

Lying? I think not..I do have a very good education and I know how to think for myself instead of being a follower. Go read the decision and see for yourself. The justice was correct. Obama was wrong. Perish the thought!!!!!! Courtney, learn to research before calling someone a liar.

Another thing Courtney, if you wish no companies to be involved then its only fair that no unions should be able to donate either but I suppose that's ok with you, right?

Tim, I do plenty of research. You are truly misinformed with your prior comments.

I can't believe how many of you are so uninformed and swayed by mass propaganda. I'm an attorney. There are two kinds of justices: activist (meaning the law doesn't mean what it says, it means what they think it should mean depending on their political agenda) and strict constructionists (meaning Constitutionalist -- the law says what it says and what the judge thinks has nothing to do with it). Clarence Thomas is of the latter genre and is one of the most brilliant legal minds to ever sit on the bench. It was activist judges who ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that our laws allowed "separate but equal" public accommodations, thus rendering segregation as "legal" for the next 60+ years. In fact, if you guys knew your history, you'd know that segregation was in fact backed by DEMOCRATS and it was conservatives and Christians who fought the hardest to end it. The "bait and switch" happened when the democrats decided to buy a constituency with welfare. The fact is, most black Americans who have worked their way to wealth and the middle class have done it the good old fashioned American way -- hard work, opportunity and education. Welfare has perpetuated an underclass that are willing democrat voters because they've been duped to believe they are getting what they deserve. Democrats keep you on the plantation, just in a different way. I recommend "Bamboozled" by Angela McGlowen, but she's black so I suppose you'll just dismiss her as a sell-out, too. Easier to do that then to educate yourselves about the truth.

Courtney Anne, you didn't answer Tim's question about unions.

I knew Clarence Thomas when he worked in the office of the Attorney General of Missouri, and stiffled an investigation of criminal activity perpetrated by Republican public officials. He has always been a partisan rascal, more interested in political power than the law.

Patti you maybe an attorney an attorney, but you are most definitely not a student of history. There are so many inaccuracies in your statement that it really is worth calling out. You are an activist. Clarence Thomas brilliant, get real.

Actually the judgement doesn't answer the question of whether foreign money can be used which means it leaves the door open for it to happen, and then be ruled on after the fact, with the damage already done. It's a loophole which only serves to make an already bad decision worse. Tim it amazes me that you or anyone could defend this decision, does the political process really need more money thrown into it? And yes they should stop unions donating as well. The less money exchanging hands the better. As for Judge Thomas, he's been determined to bringing the court into disrepute from the start and he may finally be close to actually achieving it. This is unacceptable.

Henry, I think you are missing the point here. Most political leaders will say whatever they want to get the vote then do something totally opposite. Patti, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I've studied constitutional law as well. The fact of the matter is, this government, both republican and democrat has put this country into a sad state of affairs and it is up to us, the citizenry, to get it back(all races!!!). It is NOT up to the government to run car companies, banks, or tell us what we can and cannot eat or provide for us when we make bad choices. It's called personal responsibility or accountability. Its not the job of the government to give us health care, it is however their job to put SOME regulations in place. Leave us alone and let us make our own choices and our own mistakes. The ONLY thing a government should do is keep us safe from harm. Here's a thought....If you want more out of life. DO MORE! Don't be dependent on ANYONE, especially government!

Perry, Patti is exactly correct. I bet you probably didn't know that the actual number of blacks that were slaves(if my memory is correct)48% were OWNED BY BLACKS! She is also correct about welfare as well. What better way to control someone than to give them a free ride. Look at Detroit, its been under democratic control for 40 years and has continually declined. Look at California, New York, New Jersey as well, all the liberal/entitlement programs and unions have bankrupted the states. Just goes to show, entitlement programs are unsustainable. Not to mention, when you raise taxes what happens. people, companies and jobs leave. Put the decisions back in the peoples hands and let them build the businesses and create jobs, not government.

Totally agree Tim. That's why I'm not democrat nor republican. I call myself a Constitutionalist. That document was drafted, not so much to protect our rights or to enumerate them (because our inalienable rights are innumerable and given to us by birthright, NOT by government) but to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. Politicians of many walks seek to pit us against one another -- black vs. white, rich vs. poor, men vs. women, gay vs. straight, old vs. young, etc., etc. It's a classic divide-an-conquer strategy. What they don't want the people to know is that is is We the People vs. government control. The more they can control us, the more power that they have. Our country operates best when our public servants obey the Constitution. Again, it was a betrayal of the law and the Constitution that allowed segregation to be the scourge that it was for so long. No wonder that the Tea Parties revere Martin Luther King, Jr.'s example and follow his example for non-violent protest -- both Dr. King and the Tea Parties were/are fighting for the same thing -- make the government obey it's own laws!

Perry, you don't post any specifics, just name-call. Typical.

kizzy why is it that a black man who grow up poor, with a mind of this own, got an educated and reads the constitution differently than you do a anti-black, uncle tom. Is not that what this place is for? What has your viewpoint gotten you? Let’s see, more children born out of wedlock, education system that teaches America is evil, government that is going to sucking the next 3 generations of unborn to pay for what the great government wants. Well the great Johnson society is not working. What has civil right done for America when you call a black man anti-black do not sound civil on Justice Thomas right to view the constitution the way he sees it. I have no problems with him or President Obama because of the color of their skin that being said, I do have a problem with President Obama's character so I think in some corners of America King's wishes have be heard! Kizzy it is not just Republicans or Democrats it people that tell us America that the constitution is bad needs fixed. Read look and see what these people along with our government Representatives have done. This did just happen it has been going on for a long time (i.e. 1907). Did you know to this day Black Americans have to be allowed to Vote by a passage of a ongoing resolution that comes up for vote every 25 year. Look in to it! Now that to me is wrong that mean at any time it is not passed Justice Thomas and all the other Black American would not be able to vote. Ask yourself where is President Obama on this issues is he out there informing the American people and educating American of this atrocity in our society .what is more important to you kizzy healthcare or Black American’s the Right to Vote.

Tim, 48%? White men's role in slavery constituted only 52%? In what book of white supremacy did you read that from?

You're basically saying that blacks (who were chattel) had almost equal representation to white men by the tune of 3 or 4 percentage points. Where are the estates of this 48% of blacks? What happened to that black wealth?

It's not that your memory isn't correct. You're just making shit up to serve an agenda. Is that similar to the 80% of white men whose ancestors raped black women?

so now I'm a racist? Typical name calling. I said I didn't remember the exact number. Here's a quote for you... "Black Americans continued to hold slaves through the Civil War. In 1860, some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves. In South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 blacks were owned by black slaveholders. [See also "Black Slaveowners."] Born a slave in 1790, William Ellison owned 63 slaves by 1860, making him one of Charleston's leading slaveholders. In the 1850 census for Charleston City, the port of Charleston, there were 68 black men and 123 black women who owned slaves. In Louisiana's St. Landry Parish, according to the 1860 census, black planter Auguste Donatto owned 70 slaves and farmed 500 acres of cotton fields. Black slaveholders were the exception to the rule, but so, too, were white ones. Only a small minority of Southern whites owned slaves, little more than five percent of the white population if calculated by individual owner, or some 20 to 25 percent if all the members of the slaveowners' families are included. This means that 75 percent or more of Southerners neither owned slaves themselves nor were members of families who did.

Tim we should also note that you are a liar. There is nothing in the current bill that prevents a foreign-owned (defined as 20% ownership by non american entities) company from making campaign contributions.

So you and Alito are liars. Educated maybe. Liar, yes.

I don't believe Mrs. Thomas is ANY part of government. It seems to me if the Kenyan's chimpanzee looking wife can have a double digit staff and live like the tribal queen, mrs. Thomas can certainly do as she pleases and it doesn't cost us any money. Go eat some monkey brains. Maybe it will give you some sense. Oh, and have a good day, you bigot.

Hey Midwest...again with the name calling? But we actually see how uneducated you are because the courts decision isn't a BILL in front of Congress. Nice try to make yourself look intelligent, so who's the liar now? JStark, we don't need that here. Take the hate somewhere else. If you want to add an intelligent conversation please do so.

I see the right-wing racists are out in full force on this blog. It goes to show the type of people we're up against.

@Tim, I think you know full well what Midwestguy is saying. Nothing in the court's ruling prevents a foreign company from making unlimited campaign contributions. Since when does a coorporation have rights anyway?

Tim, you're searching for a story but lack the facts to adequately discuss. I recommend you study up on manumission and all that entails. Come on dude, educate yourself beyond your agenda

ok, if that's the case then take away union donations as well.

Tim, intelligent people should be able to use the term "liar" when describing what comes out of someone else's mouth. You didn't speak the truth. In nonpolitical terms, that means you are a liar. Not namecalling. Just using appropriate terminology.

Take away union donations? Since the discussion was about the potential for foreign-owned companies to make campaign contributions, which foreign-based unions are you referring to?

The Supreme Court is a joke, its a partisan group that reflects the ones who put them into office for life, which is scary when its obvious you have someone like Thomas mentally disturbed over his being black and the most reliable anti-black vote there. The whole Court should just be disbanded since anyone with a clue knows its not "blind justice." Its funny when you have Roberts ticked off with the truth from Obama, I guess the real truth hurts, but, it always does with the right wingers, of which today seems to have dragged more than a few in here.

Say what you want about this clown but he is the biggest Oreo in America. Being that he grew up poor and had it rough as a child doesn't mean anything to me. If you been through all of that, your not suppose to forget where you come from. Period. I been through the same thing but I am proud of my humbled beginnings and can't wait to see my future. Say it loud.........

There are just as many white folks if not more on the welfare roles also or did you forget the number of poor whites that exist. Now, does that make them have the plantation mentality also. There seems to be a lot of facts that need to be checked before the name calling starts. Another group getting welfare are large Corporations and Farmers. That fact has been going on for years. So, don't try to toss blacks into the welfare salad everytime you think of welfare.

To Tim and Patti you are right wing conservative with partisan views, just as I am a progressive liberal with partisan views. I majored in history Tim and I am quite aware that African Americans owned slaves although your figure of 48 percent is ridiculously high. However, as far as the welfare state, exactly how does those assistance make anyone dependent. Me and my siblings grew up on welfare as children, but not one of us have ever requested that type of assistance as adults. I graduated from a University that has the number one program in the nation for International Business degree; therefore, your theory of dependence is in no way supported. Also, the Republican party of Lincoln is not the same Republican Party today. As a matter of fact the Democrats of the 1940's and 50's such as Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox all switched to the Republican Party after Johnson passed the civil rights act. So,stop misleading people about Republicans supporting civil rights the parties realigned. I am not just name calling, I have facts too. Every southern Democrat has mostly switched to the Republican Party that was the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon election in 1968. Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President in Philadelphia, Mississippi were Swarner, Goodman and Chaney were murdered. Please explain that symbolism?

I am also tired of listening to right wing kooks talk about welfare as a system of dependence. Welfare as a program of dependence was aleviated with Welfare reforn under the Clinton Adminstration in 1994. It is merely an short term assistance program now. However, this program gets attacked more than anything because the people who needs this assistance do not have big time lobbyist in Washington like big corporation taht strive on corporate welfare of like the Jewish lobby that gets big time dollars for assistance for Israel. White folks didn't have a problem with Welfare when there asses were starving and loosing employment during the Great Depression and they certainly didn't have a problem with getting a college education using the GI bill.

Tim's quote on black slaveholders comes from Roger D. Mcgrath's article "Slavery's Inconvenient Facts," Chronicles magazine, November 2001 This is how "Chronicles Magazine" is cited on Google: Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture Leading paleoconservative journal, published by the Rockford Institute.

This is who Roger Mcgrath is: Roger D. McGrath, Ph.D.: with years of military experience first as a former Marine and later as a military historian with the California Center for Military History. Prof. McGrath taught history at UCLA for 15 years, before teaching at Pepperdine, and ultimately California State University-Northridge. He is the author of Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes (University of California Press 1984) and contributor to Crime in the West: Then and Now, Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier, and Violence in America: The History of Crime as well as several articles: Death Before Dishonor, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, Treat Them to a Good Dose of Lead, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, The Myth of Violent Frontier, Harper's Magazine. He has published more than 30 articles, encyclopedia entries, and book reviews on other topics as well. Dr. McGrath has appeared as an expert on the Old West, World War II, and the history of crime in the A & E and History Channel documentaries The Real West (25 episodes), Biography (6 episodes), Tales of the Gun (3 episodes), Save our History - Valley Forge; and a dozen more documentaries on the Discovery Channel, TNT, and other networks, including Forgotten Wars, Crimes in Time, Outlaws, Outlaws and Lawmen, and The Story of the Gun. Roger's other television and radio experience includes CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and others. Among his other academic specialties are subjects on the American West, the Irish in America, and World War II. Some of his more recent works include Death Before Dishonor, Letter From California: The Reconquista of California, and The Western Way of War: From Plato to NATO. [I don't think that any of this makes him a historical authority on slavery greater than the likes of James Walvin, Nell Painter, Kenneth Stamp etc.]

[Moreover, this is how "A blog written by increasingly few graduate students in the UCLA history program" assesses Roger Mcgrath's thinking:] Roger D. McGrath received his Ph.D. from U.C.L.A., back in the late seventies. Today he is a lecturer at Cal State Northridge and Pepperdine University. (No way to link directly for CSUN, so go here and type in "McGrath" to see him listed as a lecturer there.) Like Michelle Malkin, McGrath believes that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was justified by military reality. Like Malkin, he argues for this conclusion using decrytped Japanese government transmissions: "What MAGIC reveals is stunning: hundreds of resident Japanese were acting as spies, feeding information to Japan." McGrath has some other interesting beliefs, and he keeps company with the interesting people who share them. And I'm not the first person to notice.

[Mcgrath, it appears, is a biased dilettante of History that serves a specific political purpose rather than an unbiased Historian of slavery.]

The white people on welfare are in the same constituency -- it's about letting the government do it instead of relying on yourself. And it's a hoot how anyone who disagrees with what a strict constructionist has to say always has to throw name-calling and labels around. I really have to ask -- what do you all have against personal liberty? What problem do you have with requiring our own government to respect its own founding principles? Adults should be self-sufficient so they can run their own lives. Adults don't need the government taking on the parental role. Perry you give yourself as the sole example of how welfare doesn't perpetuate dependency. Your example is honorable and I give credit to your parents and yourself for getting it right. But government redistribution programs in the United States and elsewhere have as many drawbacks if not more than attributes. Hand-up programs are worthy but hand-outs can create a dependent subculture that ruins the gifts and spirits of those who inhabit it. And that's not a benefit, that's a tragedy. And it's not just about the U.S., it's about political philosophy, too. Why governments exist, which mechanisms work best for the greatest number of people, etc. So it's not just about American history. You activists don't see the forest because you keep griping about the trees.

Suddenly, acting for the defense of Uncle Clarence Thomas this site is being haunted by trolls or those who want to convince us that their views are so honorable and worthy. This type of hype has been in existence since Ralph Ellison wrote Invisible Man which was published in the forties and got even worse by the time James Baldwin wrote The Fire Next Time in the fifties. Neither Republicans nor Democrat have black folks best interest in mind. Independent thinkers never believed the hype. Both are self serving just like Clarence is self serving. This man seems to have a hatred against his own people that far surpases good rational thinking so don't justify anything he is doing for me. Let me make my own judgement call. I don't need your pontificating. There will be many more Tea Parties just like there have always been when it comes to moving the country foward. The challenge really is where is the country going. None of you soothsayers have the answer to that.

@Patti, it's funny how you keep harping about activist judges and that they should be "strict constructionist." The supreme court's ruling that handed the elections to George Bush was not activist? Right, it's only activism when you don't like the ruling. As a liberal I have no problem with personal liberties, it also extends to a woman's right to choose. The government must stay out of our bedrooms... don't just say personal liberties to suit your fancies. You said..."The white people on welfare are in the same constituency"... The majority of low income whites on welfare vote against their interests, they're conservative and vote Republican. And please stop trying to play like welfare is the reason for the country's fiscal mess. Try not starting unjust wars and handing out non-bidding contracts for war profiteering. Try stop cutting taxes for the one percent of the population while continuing expenditure. Patti you are coming with a right-wing agenda and failing to change any minds.

Trolls for Uncle Thomas: Please take your nonsense elsewhere. This is a predominately Black webpage and, in case you haven't noticed, BLACK PEOPLE HATE CLARENCE THOMAS!! Our hatred of him is justified and it will not change, so just move on.

This is something that we, the constiuency, should not give a free pass to. The fact that a US Supreme Court Justices' wife is involved in a organization such as this one speaks volumes and should not be ignored. This should be shouted to the rooftops .... Call'em out. This article should be sent to everyone in your address book so that folks know who is connected to who and what and who they represent. We may not be able to fight the powers that be with their big bucks at their level,but we can use over voices. Spread the word, don't just let it go. Speak truth to Power. Get the word out!

Midwest won't answer questions about obama's love affair with the unions, the seiu specifically. He just covers his ears and yells "liar,liar,liar..." until he thinks it's safe to come out of his hole.

Trinity - just wondering if you'll also be shouting from the rooftops and calling out eric holder for dropping judgments against the new black panther party for voter intimidation? After all, he is the AG and "the constituency" should "know who is connected to who and what and who they represent." Get the word out!!!

tjr: First, you make assumptions when you talk about a woman's right to choose. Did I say I was pro-life? Second, you're bring up Bush again? My gosh man, he's gone, has nothing to do with this, get over it. I've never seen such pathology about one politician in my life. And you're correct, activism did exist under Bush. Holy cow. Ostend Street: "Uncle Clarence Thomas...having a hatred against is 'own people'?" Maybe his "own people" are fellow Americans and he can see past color, which you apparently cannot. As long as you continue to segregate yourselves as a group from the rest of your countrymen and women based upon race, you will remain separate at your own bidding, and people will continue to see you that way. Cmoney, telling us to because this place is for black people who hate Clarence Thomas -- I have never seen such a racist post anywhere ever. As an American you are a lost cause. If you don't like America or don't want the government's intrusion upon our liberties to be restricted you are perfectly free to move away. But don't try to take our liberties away just because you have no problem being a subject who is beholden to his government. Trinity, there's no legal conflict of interest here. Tea parties demand obedience to the laws which restrict government and the law itself requires nothing less. A judge's job bottom line is to see that this is done. By referring to yourselves as a "constituency" is self-segregation that millions of Americans of all types fought so hard to abolish, and now here you are doing it yourself. What does your constituency want if not obedience to the laws that are there to protect our liberties? Does Thomas' wife not deserve her freedom to pursue her own happiness just because you don't like it? What if I don't like your freedom to self-segregate? Should I be able to force you to change? The lack of legal education and instruction in political philosophy is painfully evident on this site.

Well, Patti, I guess you have not been online much if you claim you've never seen racism on sites, racism from the right wing is all over the Internet, and, the usual victims are black or latino's, and, to which a clown like Thomas defends. Try Fixed News message board to see just how much racism flows, or does it get a pass as you agree with said posters LOL! And, if the Tea party is not racist, I'm Barbara Bush posting up in here, when you see folks in black face and flying the Confederate flag at their 95% white rallies, don't get mad that decent folks see racists and call it out.

And, just when have you people ever wanted to deal with people who don't look like you, keep it really now hun. Your thought pattern does not and your voting pattern does not allow for anyone not white, even the chumps like Thomas, who is good for one thing, trying to keep all the power in you alls hands. And, lets not forget, the GOP/tea party's idea, no blacks wanted, unless you can bash Obama and, we don't get called out as the real racists.

Moe, what haven't I answered? I thought it was clear from our last bout that the Unions are a constituency of the democratic party like the NRA is a constituency for Republicans. If you have a substantive question that can be answered, I will.

Patti, those of us who don't support or are a part of the Tea Party are what? The tea Party represents what? A constituency. Tea Partiers like the birthers have no idea what they want outside of what Beck and Bachmann tells them. Just this weekend, Tea Partier CEO Michelle Bachmann just urged fellow Tea Party dimwits to NOT pay taxes to the IRS in protest. Will she meet them down at the local jail when they are investigated and charged with willful tax evasion? No she won't because she knows that the blind really can lead the mute and dumb.

You go off on the simpleton tangent claiming to not like the idea of a "constituency." Yet, you promote the tea Party as a? Hello, legally educated poster. They are a constituency. That's right say it with me so Mrs. Thomas and the rest of the "don't take away my medicare" imbeciles like yourself can comprehend.

Con

sti

tuen

cy

All together now, CONSTITUENCY.

D, your ignorance is showing. Your post would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. What a pawn. I dare you to show me a single photo of anyone in black face at these rallies, let alone flying confederate flags. I've been to many of these rallies, including the one in DC, and there has never been anything of the kind, and if there were that individual would be run out by the other participants. There were also many, many people of color at the DC rally who apparently can see past their own racism (which apparently you can not) to understand that freedom is not a color issue, it is an American issue. So why don't you research some factual material and get off of the race-pandering sites you seem to get your information from. Why do you guys allow yourselves to be used this way? And I find it amazing how you all respond to the material I've submitted, is the truth really so difficult for you all? Quit name-calling and try being informed rather than just opinionated.

Midwest Guy, quit getting off on a tangent. And why are you so condescending about the tea parties just because you don't agree with them? There you go again, calling names, they are simpletons who blindly follow Beck...who is blindly following who? The tea parties are staffed by Americans of many ideological walks who have one thing in common -- we want to be free from the government running our lives. We understand an appropriate need for taxation but that does not mean that government taxation or the wasteful spending thereof is always appropriate, it can become oppressive. Now seriously, what don't you agree with? You like and agree with oppressive government control? Do you like to be a subject to your government? If so, then we can disagree, because frankly I prefer not to live under tyranny. It's really pretty simple.

Patti if anyone is displaying ignorance it is you. You have shown that receiving a law degree doesn't necessarily make you an intellectual. You are a right wing partisan and it has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution other than the fact that you have the right to think that way. Just as I have the right to believe in my liberal progressive views. But it is only a viewpoint. Welfare is mere percentage of this countries budget. It is not what's bankrupting the country.

Well, dear Patti, thanks for the compliment, your take on real life issues are the lame, tired, wore out GOP/tea party talking pints. So, my dear, keep on harping and whining about how you are all for fairness and equality, when your long, winded posts say otherwise, but, thanks again, glad the truth has set you free! Because, Lord knows if we waited on your kind to have this country live up to what it claims to be, no person of color would have a chance, and, Thomas would still not be able to marry that white chick and would be more bitter and angrier than he is now. Now, have a nice cup of Earl Grey and have a wonderful day now, you hear!

Patti, I'm not condescending about the Tea Partiers, I am purposefully insulting the ignorance found within your group. I maintain that if you, (like many) are getting your talking points from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Tancredo, Malkin, and head dimwit Bachmann, then they are dumb.

If the government running your lives are at the crux of your argument, where is the anti-medicare platform. That particular program is about as government involved as you can get. The next time you imbeciles rally against gov't spending, make disallowing incentives to small business part of your platform. Those pesky, intrusive SBA loans that many americans take advantage of. Or how about those socialist pell grants that, I assume, only non tea partiers take advantage of.

I have not seen any of those proposals covered in any Tea Party/Birther event. I believe identifying those sort of programs is a start to taking your country back.

Joni is absolutely right about a conflict of interest regarding a wife of a supreme court justice advocating a bias political point of view. Be afraid America, be very AFRAID!!!

Patti, time to take you jacks and go home, you have been schooled and mocked beyond the posters up in here, and, Justin, spot on with the truth, its a total conflict of interest, but, that's never stopped Thomas before.

Midwest Guy, sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't listen to any of those guys -- who has the time? And I'm not a republican. I call myself a Constitutionalist. As for SBA loans and pell grants, most of us don't personally have a problem with those because we support educational opportunities for as many people as possible. That is why the tea parties aren't taking those on. And btw, most tea party members are not birthers so you can quit lumping them together. Ty, hate to tell you this dude, but look it up, there is no legal conflict of interest. You personally might not like it, but the law doesn't prohibit her freedoms based upon her husband's job, and in the legal profession, of which I am a member, there is no conflict of interest. As long as you guys can keep dishing out your kindergarten-grade name calling and "take your jacks and go home rhetoric," I can keep dishing out facts.

P.S. The fact that you all just love to resort to throwing out the "right-wing partisan" and "it's all Bush's fault" rhetoric indicates stunted analytical skills. I mean, I don't think just because you guys think what you think makes you "left-wing lib-nuts." There is such a thing as honest adult debate that stays focused and civil. You guys need to do some major soul-searching.

Ty, admittedly this is conjecture, but I'd be willing to bet that if a justice's spouse was a member of a political organization whose views you agreed with, you wouldn't be calling them out for "conflict of interest." You can't have it both ways.

Either you are a real zealot or someones paying you off. Which is it? Or is it all of the above.

My gosh, you seriously cannot fathom in your mind that I might be acting on my volition because I care enough about my fellow citizens to want them to be appropriately armed with the facts. Now I'm a "zealot" -- because I believe the government should obey our country's Constitution? Because I believe in liberty? Well, if that makes me a zealot, I'm proud to be one.

Now that we have that clarification, I wish you well. Keep doing whatever it is you're doing!!

Patti I have read your responses to several people and you need to take a good look in the mirror before you claim that we are name calling and not using adult and civil debate. You are not honest in your assessments and the substance of your argument has been standard right wing propaganda.

A gracious thank you. Please remember: I regard you all as my fellow citizens of the U.S. with all of the true affection that goes with that. I hate to see us divided when we really have more in common than not. Ultimately, I just want what is best for all of us, and what affords us all the best opportunity for what we all really want -- happiness and success. My wishes for you for both.

Patti, you can call yourself whatever you like. But if you are a voting constituent in this country, you are either a Republican, Democrat or Independent. There is no such thing as a constitutionalist identification in voting.

You may not have a problem with those programs but they are government sponsored programs nonetheless. I have heard shouts from countless Tea Party imbeciles who claim ignorance as to whether Obama is really an American. I didn't make it up. The dumb birther/tea partiers have. Sadly, most Tea Partiers (at least those I've seen or heard) have no idea what their platform is outside of being against the current Administration. There is a reason we never heard of a Tea Bagger until Obama became president.

Now you have spouses of SCJustices being concerned about the President's leftist agenda. She happens to have an affinity for Limbaugh and Beck - two of the most vile, race/fear mongering asses on TV. That's who she chooses to associate herself with and many Tea Partiers blindly follow. She has every right to participate in this group and considering her husbands positions on those who look like him, I'm not surprised. He probably gave her the idea just to show how much he hates himself.

I am not surprised that a woman who is the wife of Clarence Thomas thinks the way she does. In fact, they deserve each other. Not only does Justice Thomas usually end up on the wrong side in terms of black issues, but he is consistently against the underdog in any situation, regardless of race. That is one of the reasons I have no respect for him.

Clarence Thomas does not like Black People. Clarence was taught not to like People of Color. He was a good student. He is one of the most racist members ever in the judicial system.

Clarence represents the corner-stone of Racism in America.

Do you remember the white and black doll baby test by legendary sociologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark from way back 60 years ago? This problem is stronger today, then over 60 years ago because of new and better media outlets. Check out the book, The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. They discovered that overwhelmingly negative portrayals permeate American television. Unfortunately, we all have been brainwashed to prefer the white dolls babies. As adult men, the brothers prefer white women. Joe Madison, says on his daily radio show that in America Black people are "Undervalued, underestimated and marginalized" and this creates a preference for White people in everyone's mind. Uncle (Tom) or Oreo cookie Clarence Thomas was put on the Supreme Court to checkmate the Black Community. Uncle (Tom) or Oreo cookie Michael Steele was put in as as the chairman of the Republican National Committee to fight President Omaba. Racists use blacks to attack other blacks.

@brooklyn moe, is that all you got? What the hell does your statment have to do with the subject matter that is being discussed ....hmmmm. Obviously the reason charges were dropped for the "alledged" voter intimadation is because there wasn't enough proof to prove otherwise. There is legitmate proof that Thomas' wife is a Tea Party supporter. What is your point? Maybe you can make the point after you go and kick rocks.

Eric Holder dropped the judgments against the new Black Panthers for the voter intimidation because the charges were trumped up/false. In the late 1960s and 1970s when the Federal government could not get a conviction of members of the Black Panthers on their trumped up charges in court, the Federal government had the leaders of the Black Panthers assassinated all across the country. Thank goodness Eric Holder is now the U.S. Attorney General.

Trinity - You find "shout from the rooftops" political relevance in the tea party support of clarence thomas' wife but none whatsoever in eric holders dismissal of judgments against the nbpp for voter intimidation? Please note, I said judgments against, not allegations against. One of the individuals is a member of the Phila Democratic Committee. Contrary to what you choose to believe, there is plenty of evidence, including video and audio. Several attorneys on holders own staff protested the dropped judgments. The Commission on Civil Rights has demanded that holder explain himself, but neither holder nor the white house has provided an explanation. I'm fairly certain that had similar judgments against the new white panther party been dropped you would take a different position.

Trinity - You find "shout from the rooftops" political relevance in the tea party support of clarence thomas' wife but none whatsoever in eric holders dismissal of judgments against the nbpp for voter intimidation? Please note, I said judgments against, not allegations against. One of the individuals is a member of the Phila Democratic Committee. Contrary to what you choose to believe, there is plenty of evidence, including video and audio. Several attorneys on holders own staff protested the dropped judgments. The Commission on Civil Rights has demanded that holder explain himself, but neither holder nor the white house has provided an explanation. I'm fairly certain that had similar judgments against the new white panther party been dropped you would take a different position.

Would have been fun to watch him and his woman walk that line with the other blacks the other day who got spewed with racial slurs and spat on the the tea party bigots, bet he would have said he didn't hear a single one or would have bowed down to them.